Why do conservatives hate free speech and freedom so much?
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
18 points (95.0% liked)
Political Memes
5434 readers
3019 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean, the FBI SHOULD be reviewed, audited, and have all their nazis purged, but good luck getting that done under either party.
I mean, the FBI SHOULD be reviewed, audited, and have all their nazis purged, but good luck getting that done under either party.
House Republicans All Vote Against Neo-Nazi Probe of Military, Police
load more comments
(1 replies)
Pornography should be outlawed
I mean, it's quite a departure for a party that whinges about the First Amendment to straight up move to the government controlling what can be published, i.e. actual literal censorship. But hey, conservatives aren't very logical.
It is right up there with the same people arguing for abortion because one should be able to decide what medical procedures (including drugs) should be done to them also arguing for COVID vaccine mandates, i.e. arguing that people should be forced to take a drug.
But then that's one of my biggest grumps about pro-choice arguments (and I am pro-choice) - there's a tendency to argue that supporting abortion is just an application of some broader principle but also to have abortion be the only controversial case where that principle actually applies.
Except nobody was physically forced down and vaccinated against their will. You can still choose not to be vaccinated, but choices have consequences. I'm not saying the government should arrest people for not being vaccinated, but people, institutions, companies and hospitals should definitely have the choice to not want to let those people inside.
I think he was saying not that it happened, but that people wanted it to happen really really bad, and that many of those same people who wanted it (or supported it, not achieved it), also support pro choice when it comes to what amounts to an ideologically similar issue (my body my choice, bodily autonomy.)
Tbf, if he is indeed saying that, he's right, pro-choice people did want forced vaccinations by law, though you're also right that they did not get forced vaccinations by law.
Before any reactionaries jump down my throat, I'm pro-choice myself and am simply trying to clarify what looks to be a misunderstanding in these couple comments here.
I've never known anyone who wanted to physically force people to get vaccinated. I did know many people, myself included, who absolutely wanted mandates. Don't want to get vaccinated? Sure, that's your choice. But other people get to choose not to be around you, and this includes your employer or any store owner or transport company, etc.
Choosing not to be around someone is you leaving, not them.
I have, so we're at an anecdotal Mexican standoff it would seem.
"Mandates" doesn't mean "optional," in fact it's quite the opposite of that.
Mandate:
1 :an authoritative command especially : a formal order from a superior >court or official to an inferior one
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mandate
Idk whether the misunderstanding comes from not knowing what a mandate is, but above you say:
I did know many people, myself included, who absolutely wanted mandates (an authoritative command especially a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one)
But then go on to say that you didn't mean "the definition of mandate" by your use of the word "mandate," instead you meant a new definition created by you that boils down to voluntary association, not "mandates."
So, which is it? Do/did you support the government forcing people by law to get vaccinated (mandates), or do you simply support people's right not to employ or hang with people on the other side of their vaccination opinions (voluntary association)?
Please stop, you're so transparent. Vaccine mandates already existed in places, which has never meant that people are physically forced to get vaccinated. Like in schools, or when you want to work in a hospital. There are mandates. Don't want to get vaccinated? Then you don't get to work there. You'll never be physically forced to vaccinate.
When my employer wanted everyone to get vaccinated, that was also called a mandate. People could still not get vaccinated, it's their choice, but then they weren't allowed in the building. No government violence required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#Private_mandates
There, plenty of mandates that have nothing whatsoever to do with physically being forced to get vaccinated. Just that when you choose not to, there are consequences. Actions have consequences, who knew?
If you still insist on pretending not to understand this, think of it this way: If you choose to not shower and never wear clean clothes (this is the choice you make), nobody will physically force you into a shower. But when you're walking around smelling like weeks old sweat and garbage, your employer will definitely not let you come back to work (and this would be the consequence). Same goes for walking around like a virus dispenser.
Honestly I'm more confused as to why you pretend there weren't people calling for prison for the unvaccinated. We agree that voluntary association is good, why deny there were also people who wanted a government mandate?
Sure though, I suppose you're right, "employer mandates" is a thing, I concede that point (well, at least that it still doesn't mean optional, but it doesn't necessarily mean governmental). That doesn't change the fact however that people were calling for more than that, people were calling for arrests, maybe not you but those people did exist. It is that which the above poster was comparing to abortion, not the much lighter version you're talking about.
I never said these people don't exist at all. I said I've never met one. So I guess I'm saying they're definitely a tiny minority.
And again: employer mandates still mean it's optional. Absolutely optional. It's optional because it's not forced.
You know what baffles me the most about this, though? That you're so hell bent on defending another random poster, who still hasn't even taken the time to clarify his own post or even respond to me. How can you be so sure that's what he meant?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
Always remember that if the conservatives who claim to love the US, had been born in 1750, they would have been Loyalist Redcoats.
I mean...if the loyalist redcoats had won, you'd have health care, gun control and there wouldn't have been a civil war, slavery would just have ended like it did in the rest of the empire.
Big jump in logic here. The decay of the British empire wouldn't even be a thing if the crown held the states. As long as we're playing pretend I'd say it would have ended up worse for everyone.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Is this project 2025? Like policies for the voter minorities that mentally liven in the 1950s.
Nah, they wanna take us even farther back to the likes of the Spanish Inquisition.
The Spanish Inquisition is too Catholic and Papist for the fundamentalist Protestant nutjobs here in the states.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wait, we don't review FBI investigations?
I know they mean their own independent panels etc.
I just think these agencies are going to push back and push back hard. That or quit/resign.
Good luck fighting your own government for 4 years.
Good luck fighting your own government for 4 years.
Unfortunately this also supports Republican goals. The less effective the government is, the easier it will be for them to ignore regulations and run their little scams, and the less support there will be for people who need it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They want to protect free speech, by creating an enforced list of banned words?
Well, they want to ban these words from appearing in laws, not from being used by anyone. So I guess it only deprives the government from free speech.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)